As the global COVID-19 pandemic continues, safe and effective vaccines are playing a pivotal role in preventing severe disease and death and limiting the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. The urgency of the COVID-19 pandemic necessitated rapid vaccine development and testing. Fortunately, NIAID’s decades-long support and conduct of coronavirus and vaccine research laid the groundwork for helping to develop a safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine in record speed.
COVID-19 Animal Models
Animal research plays a key role in developing successful vaccines for humans. Before promising vaccine candidates can be tested in humans, they must first be tested for safety and effectiveness in animals as required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. To do this, scientists first determine whether a vaccine candidate can stimulate an adequate and safe immune response. This important step is often conducted using small and then, potentially, larger animal models of disease. Mice are frequently used because they reproduce rapidly, have a well-characterized immune system and a defined genome. Some labs turned to mouse models of infection early in the COVID-19 pandemic only to find that mice don’t get infected with SARS-CoV-2. In order to infect cells, SARS-CoV-2 must bind to a human protein called ACE2. The human and mouse ACE2 proteins are different, and SARS-CoV-2 does not bind to mouse cells. Scientists overcame this problem by generating mice that can express the human version of ACE2 and can therefore be infected with SARS-CoV-2. When these genetically modified mice are infected by the virus, they lose weight and become sick in ways that are similar to what happens when people are infected with the virus. Mouse models provided vital information about COVID-19 symptoms and its disease course and continues to be used by researchers to understand COVID-19 disease.
Syrian hamsters are another important animal model for COVID-19 because disease in those animals closely resembles the disease in humans. Additionally, older male hamsters develop more severe disease than young female hamsters, which reflects some of the differences seen in humans infected by SARS-CoV-2. Hamster models have contributed to the evaluation of investigational COVID-19 vaccine candidates, immunotherapies, and antiviral drugs.
Vaccine development for COVID-19 also benefitted from nonhuman primate studies. In assessing immunogenicity and protection of vaccines in pre-clinical animal models, nonhuman primates provide several advantages for clinical translation. They are outbred, have greater similarity to humans than rodents in innate immune responses and B- and T-cell repertoires, and allow use of clinically-relevant vaccine doses. Recent studies in nonhuman primates show that SARS-CoV-2 targets similar replication sites and recapitulates some aspects of COVID-19 disease. Nonhuman primates are used during the later stages of vaccine development and typically build upon the knowledge accumulated in earlier small animal studies.
A New Type of Vaccine
The biopharmaceutical companies Moderna, Inc., based in Cambridge, Mass., and Pfizer, Inc., based in New York City, developed a new type of nucleic acid vaccine called an mRNA vaccine that when tested in clinical trials, proved to be more than 90 percent effective at preventing COVID-19. Animal studies contributed to the scientific understanding of how these new types of mRNA vaccines work. For example, when the 2016 Zika virus outbreak occurred, researchers developed a nucleic acid vaccine that protected against Zika virus infection in mice and nonhuman primates. The Moderna and Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines use the nucleic acid, messenger RNA (mRNA) to produce the viral spike protein found on the surface of SARS-CoV-2. Because mRNA is unstable, it is enclosed in lipid nanoparticles to prevent it from degrading following injection. Cells then produce the viral spike protein and display it on their surfaces. In this form, the viral spike protein is recognized by the body and triggers an immune response. This response includes the production of antiviral antibodies and T- cell responses that allow the body to remember how to fight off SARS-CoV-2 if infected in the future.
Preclinical data with Moderna’s mRNA vaccine produced promising results in animal models. Mouse experiments demonstrated that a low dose of the vaccine induced a robust neutralizing antibody response and a high-level protection against SARS-CoV-2. Moreover, vaccination of nonhuman primates with the mRNA vaccine induced robust SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing activity and notably, rapid protection in the upper and lower airways, similar to safety and immunogenicity results subsequently observed in a phase I human clinical study.
Looking to the Future
Biomedical studies involving animal models have greatly contributed to the public health response to SARS-CoV-2 by assisting in the development of COVID-19 vaccines and treatments. Animal studies will continue to provide vital information as new SARS-CoV-2 variants emerge and new questions arise as to the transmissibility of these variants, whether they are more harmful to people, and if they remain sensitive to available vaccines. Animal models play a critical role in pandemic response efforts as they are necessary for evaluating the safety and effectiveness of new vaccines and therapeutics. Scientists will continue building on the lessons learned from COVID to develop animal models as part of our pandemic preparedness efforts to target other emerging or re-emerging infectious diseases.
In 1999, the Home Secretary Jack Straw pledged to close down cruel vivisection puppy farms in the UK. Over twenty years later, we are still waiting for Government action.
In June 2021, undercover footage exposed hundreds of whimpering beagle puppies being loaded onto trucks at MBR Acres in Wyton, Cambridgeshire, UK. These frightened dogs, and thousands of others were destined to be poisoned to death, dissected whilst still alive, or otherwise painfully experimented on in laboratories across the world.
We are calling for an immediate end to the breeding of dogs for research.
We are also calling on the Government to mandate a rigorous public scientific hearing on the efficacy of animal research, judged by independent experts from the relevant science fields, as per Early Day Motion 175.
Fauci just spent $424,000 to commission a study in which healthy beagles are given an experimental drug and then intentionally infested with flies that carry a disease-causing parasite that affects humans. At the end of the ongoing experiment, the dogs will all be killed. To shut this lab down and adopt out the survivors, add your name to our urgent new taxpayer petition!
Paid for by the White Coat Waste Project, Inc., EIN 46-0856543. White Coat Waste Project is a 501(c)(3) bipartisan coalition of 3 million taxpayers opposed to the government’s wasteful spending on animal experiments. Our mission? To stop $20 billion in taxpayer-funded animal experiments. Contributions are tax-deductible to the fullest extent allowed by U.S. law. By providing your cell phone or mobile phone number you are consenting to receive calls and texts, including autodialed and automated calls and texts, to that number with updates and notifications from White Coat Waste Project, and any like-minded organizations. White Coat Waste Project is happy to help at (202) 656-9044. Reply HELP for help, STOP to end. Message frequency may vary. Message and data rates apply. Terms and Conditions here.
To contribute by mail, please send a personal check or money order made payable to WCW to:
In yet another segment of the Fauci horror show, new documents emerged that show how the NIAID spent almost half a million in taxpayer dollars to fund abusive experiments on dogs even though the research had already been conducted.
The White Coat Waste Project used the Freedom of Information Act to uncover disturbing documents that detailed how Fauci and the NIAID, in an effort to test the effectiveness of drug treatment, intentionally infested healthy beagles with flies that were carrying disease-causing parasites.
JUST IN: #Fauci & NIAID spent almost half a million in taxpayer funds to infect dogs w/ parasites
The research had already been conducted on other animals – Scientists called it completely unnessecary
Once the dogs were no longer needed, they were killed
The records detail how the once-healthy dogs ‘vocalized in pain’ throughout the abuse and suffered for months before being euthanized, some were even bitten to death by the parasites. 360p 720p 1080p Auto (360p) About Connatix
If they endured the cruel tests, and once the researchers had no use for them anymore, the poor dogs were killed.
Multiple other scientists have admitted that the experiment was completely unnecessary, pointing to the fact that this research had been extensively performed on other animals.
“Experimenters admit this investigational drug, ‘has been extensively tested and confirmed…in different animal models such as mice…Mongolian gerbils…and rhesus macaques….’”
Basically, Fauci wasted over $400,000 in taxpayer dollars to fund his psychopathic hobbies that include abusing animals.
White Coat Waste Project went on Fox News to talk about their recent revelations from their FIOA request:
“Justin Goodman, a WCW Project vice president, told Domenech that the testing was likely a case of “not following the science”, adding that the FDA reportedly has said testing on canines isn’t always compatible to human-drug interactions.
“The EPA and the VA have ended dog testing,” he added.
Fox Nation host Lara Logan also joined the discussion, as well as her own pet dog, Honey, seated on her lap.
“We know these things happen, but should they be happening with taxpayer money? Dr. Fauci is increasingly becoming Dr. Evil. Over and over again, the decisions that he made that have just destroyed millions of lives all over the world are becoming more apparent by day,” Logan added.
“We still don’t know so much about what he’s doing. We don’t know what they’re doing at the NIH with animals. We don’t know what research they’re funding with gain of function,” she continued.”
This is not the first time documents have shown unethical and abusive experiments conducted under Fauci. In 2016, WCW exposed how the NIH was funding similar experiments to buy beagle puppies and strap capsules of infected flies to their skin.
The group also exposed how Fauci’s 2021 taxpayer-funded budget for conducting his ‘research’ is $6 billion, and that “roughly half,” and likely more, will be used for experimenting on animals.
Back in May, the Gateway Pundit reported on what’s probably the most horrifying example of Fauci’s sick ‘research’ – the barbaric experiment of grafting human fetus scalps onto living mice.
An immense body of empirical evidence has supported the position that animal models offer no predictive value for human response to drugs and disease. But perhaps more importantly, recent developments in evolutionary and developmental biology, genetics, gene regulation, gene expression, and gene networks gained in large part as a result of the Human Genome Project, in addition to advances in understanding complex systems, have significantly increased our understanding of why animals have no predictive value for human response to drugs or the pathophysiology of human diseases.
Applying Complexity Theory and the Theory of Evolution to the problem of using one evolved, complex adaptive system (CAS) as a model in order to predict responses of a second, has resulted in what Dr. Ray Greek has called Trans-Species Modeling Theory (TSMT)1: While trans-species extrapolation is possible when perturbations concern lower levels of organization or when studying morphology and function on the gross level, one evolved, complex system will not be of predictive value for another when the perturbation affects higher levels of organization.
TSMT allows scientists to place the empirical evidence regarding the failure of animal models in context. TSMT is a theory (although not universally accepted at present). In order to understand theory in science, note the following statements from the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Academy of Sciences.
In detective novels, a “theory” is little more than an educated guess, often based on a few circumstantial facts. In science, the word “theory” means much more. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not “guesses” but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than “just a theory.” It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.
The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.
Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.
One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. For example, the theory of gravitation predicted the behavior of objects on the moon and other planets long before the activities of spacecraft and astronauts confirmed them. The evolutionary biologists who discovered Tiktaalik predicted that they would find fossils intermediate between fish and limbed terrestrial animals in sediments that were about 375 million years old. Their discovery confirmed the prediction made on the basis of evolutionary theory. In turn, confirmation of a prediction increases confidence in that theory.
In science, a “fact” typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term “fact” to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.
TSMT is supported by vast amounts of empirical evidence, is consistent with science outside of the specific areas of biology it addresses, and both explains current scientific facts as well as predicting the answers to future questions.
Why is TSMT important?
When AFMA was formed in 1999, the case against the predictive value of animal models for human drug and disease response was of the empirical or clinical variety. A wide variety of clinical studies and case reports had shown that, when compared with how drugs ultimately affected humans or how diseases affected humans, animal models had reacted the same way a small percentage of the time. That meant that animal models had failed to meet the scientific standard for burden of proof in terms of offering predictive value.
From the perspective of the physician practicing medicine in the real world, this evidence would be sufficient to abandon the use of animal models in hopes of learning about drug and disease response in humans. For the clinician engaged in the world of cancer patients and auto accident victims, human response is the final arbitrator of truth—not what happens to animals in a laboratory. So when physicians observe a drug kill or maim even a small number of patients, that is enough proof for them to stop administering that drug, regardless of how much the drug was studied in the laboratory and what was learned from those studies. They don’t need to know—and are not necessarily even interested in—the pharmacology of the drug in eight different animal species.
Far from the often messy and chaotic world of clinical medicine, some medical researchers believe, and have stated, that the laboratory (meaning the laboratory where animals are used) is the “true sanctuary” of medicine, as opposed to the clinic or hospital where clinical research is performed. Indeed, clinical medicine is fraught with variables that cannot be controlled, thus leaving any clinical study or observation open to criticism and second-guessing. In this respect, the animal-based researchers are correct in their assertion that laboratory-based research is much more controlled and thus, from their perspective, better than clinical medicine. But patients suffer from disease in the real world, not the artificial world of the laboratory, and hence must be studied in the real world. This is not intended to undermine the importance of in vitro or in silico research, provided such research is human-based. But the final arbiter of truth is how patients respond, not what happens in an animal or other non-human system.
Accordingly, empirical evidence in the form of clinical observations, controlled studies, and case reports refuted the claims for predictive value by the animal model community. But the animal model community, as well as some that do not rely on animals, demanded more before abandoning animal models. Such people believe that what one aims for in science is an overarching theory that can predict outcomes without having to perform experiments every time a question is raised. Therefore, they asserted that the empirical evidence previously put forth had not been scientific enough, for it has failed in their view to adequately answer the “big” question: why do animal models fail?
The reason animals sometimes—but more often do not—react as humans is being illuminated by our knowledge concerning genes, gene regulation, gene expression, and gene networks. This knowledge has come in large part from the results of the Human Genome Project and other similar genome projects. In addition to advances in genomics, application of Complexity Theory to biomedical research has informed scientists on the subject of animal models. This combination of scientific advances allows us to formulate an overarching theory to explain what we have observed empirically for decades. In short, all animals are examples of robust, complex systems (on many levels) and hence demonstrate emergence, are modular, are dependent upon initial conditions, and are nonlinear, in addition to exhibiting other relevant properties. This means that a perturbation to complex system S1 that led to effect A will not necessarily lead to effect A in complex system S2, regardless of how similar the two complex systems are currently or were at one time.
Living complex systems manifest different responses to the same perturbation due to:
1. differences with respect to genes present; 2. differences with respect to mutations in the same gene (where one species has an ortholog of a gene found in another); 3. differences with respect to proteins and protein activity; 4. differences with respect to gene regulation; 5. differences in gene expression; 6. differences in protein-protein interactions; 7. differences in genetic networks; 8. differences with respect to organismal organizations (humans and rats may be intact systems, but may be differently intact); 9. differences in environmental exposures; and, 10. differences with respect to evolutionary histories.
These are some of the important reasons why even two nearly identical living complex systems (e.g., a chimpanzee and a human, or even monozygotic twins) may respond differently to drugs and experience different diseases, and hence why one evolved complex system/species cannot reliably predict responses for a different evolved complex system/species. Current biomedical research is studying disease and drug response at the level where the differences between complex systems (be they two different species or two different humans) are critical, hence using animals (e.g., vertebrates) as predictive or causal analogical models (CAMs) for human diseases and drug testing is a scientifically invalid paradigm. Because we have scientific theories, we don’t have to evaluate examples covered in the theory on a case-by-case basis, we just apply the theory. Theories and laws in science prohibit certain hypotheses. For example, the Germ Theory of Disease prohibited, and indeed replaced miasma—the notion that rotting organic matter caused disease. The Germ Theory does not prohibit other causes of disease, such as cancer, vascular abnormalities, and endocrine disorders, but it does mandate the clinician consider bacteria and viruses instead of rotting matter for certain clinical presentations. Likewise, Atomic Theory prohibits an infinite division of matter into smaller and smaller units, and the Theory of Relativity prohibits faster than light velocities. Suggesting that animal models must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis is like asking that each flora or fauna that fills an ecological niche be evaluated for achieving its position through an act of special creation or evolution. There is no logical reason to assume the trait in question was not the result of a special creation. But in light of theory—the Theory of Evolution—and empirical evidence, there is no reason to seriously consider such a hypothesis. Despite the development of an all-encompassing theory as to why animals offer very low predictive value, there remains—much to the detriment of human health and medical progress—extraordinary resistance to abandoning the use of animals as predictive models (see Why All the Opposition to AFMA?). The goal of AFMA, therefore, is to educate the scientific community, as well as society in general, about the urgent need to move away from the ineffective animal model and to move toward research methods that truly reflect the enormous strides science has made in knowledge of living systems.
Something we can all get behind. Dogs have gone from utilitarian, in the beginning of the last century, to being part of the family—like your kids (Sometimes better! I’ve seen some of your kids). We’ve advanced in so many areas; surely we can advance here. https://t.co/JyjxOGRzXF
More than 90 percent of drugs that pass in animal testing procedures don’t work for humans. Yet, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) still requires it. And at a critical point in its development, researchers fast-tracked a COVID-19 vaccine without first testing it on animals, begging the question: is it really necessary at all?
Modern technology has given us viable alternatives to animal testing that are more accurate, effective, and humane.
Let’s stop government-sponsored animal abuse.
Sign this petition urging House leaders to pass the Alternatives to Animals for Regulatory Fairness bill, helping to save millions of animals from cruel, archaic, and deadly experiments.
Introduced by Sen. Jennifer Boysko and Delegate Kaye Kory, the new law prohibits the sale of cosmetics tested on animals after Jan. 1, 2022.
Virginia joins California, Nevada, and Illinois, while a larger effort to ban these products federally continues to gain bipartisan support. Animal testing involves cruel and inhumane procedures, such as dripping shampoo into rabbits’ eyes although the animals don’t have tear ducts to wash out the irritating product, and feeding mice enough of a cosmetic until they die to determine a “lethal dose.”
Cosmetic animal testing started during the 1940s as the only “realistic” technology for testing makeup on human skin, but experts now consider it ineffective and outdated, CBS 19 reported. Some research bodies– including the Center for Contemporary Sciences (CCS) — are shifting completely away from animal testing due to both the cruelty involved and the problematic differences between animal and human genetic makeups.
“Greater than 90 percent of drugs and vaccines fail in human clinical trials, despite showing signs of safety and efficacy in animal and traditional laboratory tests,” said CCS’s Director of Science and Technology Jarrod Bailey. “We, therefore, need, urgently, to shift the focus of biomedical research and testing away from animals and towards hi-tech, cutting-edge human-based methods.”
Unfortunately, there are exceptions to the ban, including pharmaceutical products that are cosmetic in nature but are officially classified as drugs — serving as a reminder that there is a lot more work to do to end animal testing.
Nevertheless, this new law marks a tremendous step forward in the fight against animal cruelty.
Cruel and unnecessary testing on animals for cosmetics and personal care products has been happening for many decades. Thankfully, a new bill has been proposed in New York that would prohibit the manufacturing and sale of cosmetics that have been tested on animals throughout the state.
The cosmetics industry has profited from the suffering of animals to ensure its own upward growth in the consumer market. Inside of these labs, small defenseless animals such as rats, mice, rabbits, and guinea pigs are confined in cages until they are subjected to horrific and painful experiments that are outdated and ineffective.
Animals do not respond to chemicals the same way that humans do. A chemical or product that is deemed safe for a mouse, rabbit, or for other animals may not be safe for human use.
Additionally, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not specifically require the use of animals in testing cosmetics for safety, while the cosmetics industry already has safer and more reliable testing methods that don’t cause harm to innocent animals. Hundreds of companies that have pledged not to test on animals have already proven there’s no longer any acceptable reason to torture animals for our vanity.
What you can do to help:
Please urge your New York state legislators to VOTE YES on S4839/A5653 to save animals from unnecessary suffering in labs for cosmetics.
1. Call your New York state senator and state representative today. To identify your senator and representative and their corresponding contact information, please click the link below and enter your address. Find your New York legislators HERE!
When you call, you can simply ask to leave a message for your senator and say:
“As your constituent, I urge you to support the ban on the sales and production of animal tested cosmetics. Rabbits, mice, and guinea pigs should not die for lipsticks or shampoos. Please vote yes on S4839/A5653″
2. Please send In Defense of Animals’ letter to your New York state senator and New York state representative by filling out the form HERE!
Content courtesy of In Defense of Animals. Help them continue fighting for animals, people, and the environment by making a donation HERE!
During disturbing cosmetics testing on animals, defenseless bunnies and guinea pigs are tied down and force-fed potentially deadly toxins or have burning chemicals dripped into their eyes without any pain relief.
When the experiments are finally over, most of the animals exploited for these tests are killed.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) doesn’t require these horrifying trials for approval, and cruelty-free alternative methods — including cell culture, noninvasive human tissue, and computer model tests — are more accurate and readily available.
And now, there is hope for animal test subjects in Virginia. The new Humane Cosmetics Act (SB1379/HB2250) — introduced by Sen. Jennifer Boysko and Del. Kaye Kory — would ban cosmetics tests on animals throughout the state, as well as the sale of any cosmetics developed or manufactured using animal testing.
If the bill is signed into law by Gov. Ralph Northam, Virginia would join California, Nevada, and Illinois in banning the sale or import of animal-tested cosmetics.
The memorandum directed that rabies housed at the Research Triangle Laboratory be retired.
Justin Goodman, VP of Advocacy and Public Policy at 3-million-member taxpayer watchdog group White Coat Waste Project said in an emailed statement, “We’re proud to have worked with Andrew Wheeler and his colleagues to secure this last-minute pardon for survivors of EPA’s taxpayer-funded animal tests. Mr. Wheeler’s directive to retire the last of the bunnies in the EPA’s taxpayer-funded labs cements his legacy as a policy pioneer who made the once-lofty goal of ending wasteful and cruel taxpayer-funded animal tests a reality. Between this move to retire survivors of EPA animal tests and the agency’s historic decision last year to end all animal testing by 2035, the EPA has set the gold standard that all agencies should aspire to meet under the Biden Administration and beyond. Taxpayers, animal lovers, and liberty lovers in all political parties can unite behind today’s pardon.”
P&G, we believe that eliminating animal testing is the right thing
to do. We do not test our products or ingredients on animals anywhere in
the world unless required by law. We are working hard to make it
obsolete. Therefore, we’ve invested more than $410 million in developing
alternative, non-animal testing methods and then getting them accepted
by regulators around the world. Today, we use more than 50 non-animal
alternatives, half of which were invented or co-invented by P&G. We
will continue working with the world’s top independent experts and
partnering with leading animal protection groups such as the Humane
Society of the U.S. to promote new alternatives research and regulatory
acceptance of existing alternatives. This is the only way to eliminate
all animal testing, globally.”
Does Procter & Gamble Test on Animals?
Procter & Gamble does test on animals. They state they don’t test
their products on animals but make the exception to satisfy a country’s
Is Procter & Gamble Certified Cruelty-Free?
No, Procter & Gamble is not certified cruelty-free by Leaping Bunny, PETA, or Choose Cruelty-Free.
In fact, Procter & Gamble is listed on PETA’s list of brands to avoid.
Is Procter & Gamble Sold in China?
Yes, Procter & Gamble is sold in China. Here is a picture of their Chinese website.
What Companies Does Procter & Gamble Own?
is a list of brands that are owned by Procter & Gamble. I’ve
indicated the ones that are sold in China and any certified cruelty-free
The choice is yours on whether to boycott some or
all of Procter & Gamble’s brands. But I would err on the side of
caution for the brands that have no information.
Aussie – PETA CERTIFIED
Braun – SOLD IN CHINA
Crest – SOLD IN CHINA
Gillette – SOLD IN CHINA
Hair Food – PETA CERTIFIED
Head & Shoulders – SOLD IN CHINA
Olay – SOLD IN CHINA
Oral-B – SOLD IN CHINA
Pantene – SOLD IN CHINA
Safeguard – SOLD IN CHINA
SK-II – SOLD IN CHINA
The Art of Shaving
Tide – SOLD IN CHINA
Wrap Up: Is Procter & Gamble Cruelty-Free?
Procter & Gamble is not a cruelty-free brand. In their animal
testing policy, they state they do not test on animals. However, Procter
& Gamble chooses to sell in China, a country that requires imported
cosmetics to be tested on animals.
by: Care2 Team
recipient: German Bundestag, City of Hamburg
The Laboratory of Pharmacology and Toxicology (LPT) is one of Germany’s largest private laboratories. The firm, which employs nearly 200 people, has been thrown in the spotlight for a very dark reason.
LPT’s main focus is toxicity testing. These tests involve exposing animals to potentially dangerous chemicals or drugs at increasingly higher amounts in order to determine the safe dosage for humans. Toxicity testing on animals in abhorrent in and of itself, but what this lab does to their animals beyond that testing is so horrific it would make Hannibal Lecter cry.
Undercover video taken by animal welfare activists reveals that the employees at the lab not only poisoned their animals for toxicity tests but abused them as well. Workers reportedly force fed capsules to beagles by shoving metal pipes down their throats. The harsh treatment left many of the dogs bleeding. Undercover footage shows many of the dogs in blood stained pens and wallowing in their own feces.
Cats were given chemical injections up to 13 times a day by people who had no training to do so.
But worst of all was the treatment reserved for macaque monkeys. Now released video shows lab workers grabbing the monkeys by the neck with metal clasps. The animals dangle by their collars as the workers try to lock them into another metal clasp on a fixed pedestal. Once connected, they are forced to stand for hours at a time while they endure whatever God awful experiments the lab has been contracted to do.
The images are shocking and show treatment that breaches EU animal welfare laws.
Now that LPT has been exposed for what it really is – a torture chamber for helpless animals – whistleblowers from the lab have come forward with even more distressing news. They say that many of the tests performed on the animals are actually scientifically useless because the lab falsified their results.
That means these animals were not just tortured but they were tortured for absolutely no reason. There are new, non-animal testing methods that are just as accurate. Any company wishing to introduce new chemicals or drugs to the market now a days should be using these methodologies, not antiquated ones that abuse and kill animals.
LPT should be shut down for breaking animal welfare laws, falsifying lab tests and killing innocent animals,and management should be held accountable.
Sign the petition and demand that the the German government cancel LPT’s license and charge them with fraud and animal cruelty.
Spending so much time on the Internet and being there all the time these days, reading everything that is served to us – good or bad – sadly enough, often are the times we hear or read stories of dogs being used for experiments.
And, truth be told, it breaks my heart every time.
Image result for Drone footage shows hundreds of dogs kept in extreme stress for research
What took the internet by storm this time, is this video taken by a drone of hundreds of dogs being kept in horrible conditions and living the life no one would want. The video was uploaded on YouTube by Shark, and according to its caption, the dogs are there for experiments.
In a Covance Research facility, in Cumberland, Virginia you can see hundreds of Beagles in extremely stressful conditions.
Keeping them trapped and in such horrible conditions according to experts is developing them ‘very toxic and aggressive behavior patterns.’ In the video, you can hear the poor creatures barking and crying at all time.
Another thing noticed there, is the so-called ‘repetitive behavior’ of the dogs which is caused by stress, seeing many of them pacing in circles. This is an indicator of a serious problem with the mental state of an animal or person. It really breaks your heart!
The cages that the Beagles are being kept, are over-filled and you can clearly see they are under so much stress, where fighting and other signs of dominance occur. Who even blames them?
It is heartbreaking knowing that these lovely dogs are going under so much stress. While the barking and the crying of the Beagles – is the new sound of the Covance research facility.
Turns out that the Covance research facility has been blamed for illegal treatment in the past as well. They were accused by PETA for immoral practices in a monkey laboratory.
To help these loving creatures who are suffering from living a stressful life being trapped in cages, living a life they do not deserve, people have created a petition to shut down the Covance research facility and rescue the poor dogs.
Today, July 23rd 2019 is a sad day. Chuck Spencer APPROVED the conditional use permit for this operation to run. Here is Chuck’s contact information. PLEASE reach out and VOICE your concerns. This is NOT right.
‘Exciting progress’ (Photo: Adobe. Do not use without permission)
Nevada has become the latest state in the US to ban the sale of animal-tested cosmetics but will exempt products imported from China, which by law have to be tested on animals.
The Nevada Cruelty-Free Cosmetics Act (SB 197), which was first introduced to state legislators in February, will take effect from January 1, 2020.
‘No longer necessary or acceptable’
Senator Melanie Scheibel, who authored the bill, told Cruelty-Free International: “For more than 50 years animals have been used in painful tests for cosmetics. But science and public opinion have evolved and today it is no longer necessary or acceptable to harm animals for new cosmetics.
“The time has come to make cruel cosmetics a thing of the past and I am proud that Nevada is leading the way.”
Not a ‘total victory for animals’
Animal-rights organization PETA said: “While the new law is certainly exciting progress, we’re not quite ready to call this one a total victory for animals,” while pointing out the exemption of countries such as China.
Nevada follows in the footsteps of California, who passed a similar law against animal-testing earlier this years, that will also come into effect from January 2020.
Click here to check which companies ‘never’ test their products on animals
Sign up for our newsletter to get the best of Plant Based News delivered to your inbox weekly.
PBN Academy launches with a selection of simple courses on health and wellness, how to rise a child vegan, reversing type-2 diabetes with diet and more.
Help push for the reintroduction and passage of landmark legislation that could end the suffering of millions of animals who are needlessly tortured and killed to test cosmetics in the U.S.
The Humane Cosmetics Act, has been introduced with bipartisan support in the 113th and 114th Congress, but was never passed out of committee. It was introduced again, but has yet to make progress. The bill as written will make it illegal to conduct or commission animal testing for cosmetics after a one year phase in, which will be followed by a ban on the sale of products and ingredients that were made using animal testing after three years.
Even though animal testing is not required by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or the Product Safety Commission in the U.S., and despite the fact that alternatives to animal testing exist, many companies continue to test their products and ingredients on animals. In fact, the FDA leaves it up to companies to substantiate the safety of their own products and recalls are left entirely up to manufacturers.
Hundreds of ethical companies have already proven that valid alternatives exist, while dozens of other countries have taken steps to end animal testing for cosmetics. Now it’s time for the U.S. to catch up and end this inhumane practice.
Please sign the petition asking your representative to support and co-sponsor the Humane Cosmetics Act.
As someone who cares about animal welfare, I am asking you to support the reintroduction of the Humane Cosmetics Act (H.R. 2858 from the 114th Congress) and hope you will support and co-sponsor this groundbreaking piece of legislation.
For decades millions of animals have been used in cruel and wasteful experiments for nothing more than human vanity. However, advances in science have proven that there are alternatives available to test the safety of cosmetics hitting the market and thousands of ingredients have already been listed as safe.
This legislation will make it illegal to conduct or commission animal testing for cosmetics after a one year phase in, which will be followed by a ban on the sale of products and ingredients that were made using animal testing after three years.
While hundreds of ethical companies have already pledged not to test on animals, a number of other countries have also already taken steps to end animal testing for cosmetics proving that it’s an unnecessary practice that belongs in the past, including Israel, Norway and India. Korea, Brazil and ASEAN are also taking steps to end cosmetics testing on animals. In June, China will end its mandatory animal testing requirement for imported cosmetics.
The European Union’s ban on the testing and marketing of animal-tested cosmetics and ingredient that was enacted in 2013 was a major milestone for animals in labs and further proof that testing is unnecessary.
There’s no reason for the U.S. to continue to lag so far behind on this issue.
With global markets closing their doors to products that have been tested on animals, a move by the U.S. to ban animal testing for cosmetics would not only be an ethically sound one, but will also allow the U.S. to continue to compete in these markets.
I sincerely hope you will support and co-sponsor this critical piece of legislation to end the needless suffering of animals in labs and help the U.S. stay current in the global marketplace.
While you’re reading this in the comfort of your home or office or maybe at a cozy coffee shop somewhere, there are an estimated 115 million animals enduring unspeakable pain and suffering in laboratories around the world.
They’ve never known freedom or what it means to be loved and cared for. They’ve never set foot outside. They have no identity, bar for a number tattooed on the inside of their ear. They’re seen as a means to an end, nothing more.
WHY ANIMAL RESEARCH IS FLAWED
It’s 2019. You’d think by now we’d have put these archaic ways behind us. Sadly, we haven’t. To make matters worse, animal testing has proven time and again to produce flawed results.
A study published by the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) concluded that along with being unreliable, animal experimentation also poses a harm to humans. Yet still we persist.
There are numerous cases where animal test results failed to predict dangers. In once instance, a drug that showed no ill effects on mice, rats and monkeys resulted in death and brain damage when given to human volunteers.
LET’S PUT AN END TO ANIMAL TESTING FOR GOOD
Animal research has to stop, and it’s up to us as individuals to make that happen. We can take a stand, we can petition and protest, we can vote with our pocketbooks. We can be the voice for the voiceless.
World Day for Laboratory Animals
1. Help Spread the Word
The easiest way is to make a difference is to spread the word on social media. Tell people about World Day for Laboratory Animals (April 24) and Lab Animal Week, which runs until the end of April. Ask them to share the message, too.
Talk about it to your friends, family and colleagues. Encourage them to shop responsibly by supporting cruelty-free brands. The more we put it out there, the better our chances of putting an end to this abhorrent practice.
2. Get Heard
If you live in the U.K., ask your MP to sign Early Day Motion #2228: Developing Innovative Science – Better for Animals. You can find a template letter at Animal Defenders International.
The biggest march for laboratory animals the UK has seen in recent years is taking place in Oxford on Saturday, April 27. Home to a university experimenting on the largest number of animals in Britain, it seems only fitting that protesters gather there.
In the US and Canada, you can help put an end to animal testing for cosmetics and the sale of animal-tested products by asking your legislator to support the US Humane Cosmetics Act.
You could also petition brands directly if you know they test their products on animals. Care2.com has enjoyed many wins with this method. Our Start a Petition page has all the information you need to make your cause heard.
3. Vote With Your Dollar
Taking action and spreading the word are important, and there’s also something you can do every single day that will have a big impact. Choose to support only those brands that sport the Leaping Bunny Logo.
It’s easy enough to spot on the packaging, but you can also search by company or brand name as well as browse by product category on the Cruelty Free International website. Every dollar spent with a like-minded company is a vote against animal testing.
HERE’S WHY YOU NEED TO SUPPORT A CRUELTY FREE WORLD
There are lots of other ways to make a difference, such as helping research animals get adopted and donating to organizations that are fighting to put an end to animal testing.
Since its inception 40 years ago, World Day For Laboratory Animals has resulted in one million fewer tests on animals. A lot of lab animals have also been saved. Take a look at these video clips to see why it’s so important to support a cruelty-free world.
Our planet is facing enormous challenges right now: climate change, poverty, and food and water security, to mention a few. All of them seem impossible to tackle, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.
Right now, people all over the world are making a difference in big and small ways. Every effort adds up. As the Danish journalist Jacob Riis reminds us, a stonecutter never splits the rock on the first blow. But if he hammers away long enough, it will eventually give.
Want to take some direct action to help lab animals today? Please sign and share the petition asking Congress to support and co-sponsor the Humane Cosmetics Act.
If you want to make a difference on an issue you find deeply troubling, you too can create a Care2 petition, and use this handy guide to get started. You’ll find Care2’s vibrant community of activists ready to step up and help you.
Animal advocates are applauding lawmakers in Canada for bringing the country closer to embracing cruelty-free beauty by moving forward with legislation that would ban animal testing for cosmetics.
The Cruelty-Free Cosmetics Act (S-214) will amend the Food and Drugs Act to make it illegal to test cosmetics products or their ingredients on animals in Canada, and it will ban the sale of beauty products that have been newly tested on animals elsewhere in the world.
It was first introduced in 2015 by Sen. Carolyn Stewart Olsen, but didn’t pass the Senate until last summer. Now, it’s supporters are celebrating more progress with its introduction in House of Commons by Conservative Shadow Minister for Health, Marilyn Gladu.
If it’s passed, Canada will become the 40th country in the world to ban animal testing for cosmetics.
Not only will doing so protect animals in labs from cruel, unnecessary, wasteful and outdated tests for personal care products and cosmetics, it will help keep Canada competitive in a global marketplace where more and more doors are closing to products that were tested on animals.
Around the world, dozens of countries have already banned this practice, while hundreds of companies have proven that they can make quality products without causing harm.
With valid alternatives and thousands of ingredients that have already been proven safe, there’s no longer any reason to continue torturing animals for nothing more than our vanity.
Please sign and share this petition urging Canadian MPs to pass this historic piece of legislation before the next election.
After years of pushing from PETA, the Chinese government has approved two more non-animal methods for testing cosmetics products in China.
The two newly approved tests, the direct peptide reaction assay for skin sensitization and the short time exposure assay for eye irritation, will spare countless animals the agony of having substances dripped into their eyes and rubbed onto their skin.
This major progress is thanks to the groundbreaking work of the expert scientists and regulatory specialists at the Institute for In Vitro Sciences (IIVS), with whom PETA provided initial funding to train Chinese scientists and educate officials in modern non-animal methods.
No animal should be poisoned or blinded for a consumer product—or any other reason.
In 2012, PETA exposed the fact that some formerly cruelty-free companies had quietly started paying the Chinese government to test their products on animals in order to sell them in that country. At the time, animal tests were required for any cosmetics sold in China. PETA immediately contacted the leading experts in the field of non-animal test methods at IIVS and provided them with the initial grant to launch their work in China.
IIVS scientists successfully worked with Chinese officials to approve the first non-animal test method, the 3T3 neutral red uptake phototoxicity assay, which is used to test cosmetics for their potential toxicity when they come into contact with sunlight.
Institute for In Vitro Sciences, China
In 2014, the Chinese government announced that it would accept the results from non-animal test methods but only for non–special use cosmetics manufactured in China. Tests on animals are still required for all imported cosmetics and all special-use cosmetics, regardless of where they were manufactured.
Support Companies that Never Test on Animals
By purchasing only cruelty-free products, you can spare sensitive rabbits, guinea pigs, mice, rats, and other animals from excruciating tests, a lifetime of suffering, and death. Need help finding out which products are cruelty-free? We’ve got you covered: PETA’s Beauty Without Bunnies database currently lists more than 3,800 compassionate companies that don’t test on animals anywhere in the world.
Less than a week after the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) released the disturbing report that 36 beagles were being force-fed a fungicide in a test commissioned by Coreteva Agriscience, a division of Dow DuPont, the company announced it will end this terrible study.
An undercover HSUS investigator at Charles River Laboratories in Michigan discovered that the beagles were being fed Adavelt, a new Coreteva Agriscience fungicide, in gelatin capsules for a year. According to the report released March 12, some of these dogs “were being subjected to very high doses – so high that up to four capsules had to be shoved down their throats.”
All the surviving beagles were scheduled to be euthanized in July. Their organs would then be removed and examined for any damage from the fungicide.
This study is horrible for many reasons. For one thing, it does not replicate how Adavelt would be ingested by humans. Even worse, the United States government hasn’t even required this test for over 10 years, ever since scientists realized it provides no worthwhile information.
Corteva Agriscience said it had to conduct the test—which it admitted was unnecessary—to meet a Brazilian regulatory requirement. However, Brazil’s pesticide authority, ANVISA, told the HSUS it will waive the test for companies that don’t want to conduct it.
At Corteva Agriscience’s request, ANVISA sent a formal, written version of this policy to the entire Brazilian pesticide industry. But Conteva Agriculture refused to stop the test until the industry received confirmation that it was no longer required. If that confirmation took longer than four months, those beagles would die in July.
The HSUS and Humane Society International (HSI) have been working for months to make Corteva Agriscience end its cruel fungicide test and release the beagles, so they can find loving homes. More than 122,000 people signed HSUS’ petition on Care2 making this demand.
On March 18, just six days after the HSUS released its report, Corteva Agriscience announced it had secured a waiver from ANVISA and had immediately ended the test. The company promised it would make “every effort” to rehome the beagles.
We’ve been working to refine, reduce, & replace animal tests for years. Today we’re pleased to announce our efforts resulted in a waiver & we can stop the study. We’ll make every effort to rehome the animals. Please read our full statement. pic.twitter.com/SQc5RJg41M
— Corteva Agriscience™ (@corteva) March 18, 2019
“We applaud Corteva for making the right decision,” Kitty Block, HSUS president and CEO, wrote on her blog. “The company has been a valuable partner to us in the past on important measures to decrease animal testing and we hope that we can work with them on a happy ending for these dogs.”
The surviving beagles owe their lives to the efforts of the HSUS and HSI, as well as everyone around the world who urged Corteva Agriscience to stop the test. Here’s hoping the HSUS is successful again in finding loving homes for every one of these survivors.
Creating a Care2 petition is easy. If you have an issue you care deeply about, why not start your own petition? Here are some guidelines to help you get started, and soon the Care2 community will be signing up to support you.
Today, Procter & Gamble joins the Humane Society International #BeCrueltyFree Campaign, to ban animal testing for cosmetics in all major global beauty markets by 2023.
“We are pleased to partner with the Humane Society International in the quest to end cosmetic animal testing. I’m proud of the passion and expertise our researchers have contributed already to this goal,” Kathy Fish, Chief Research, Development and Innovation Officer of Procter & Gamble said in a statement. “I know they will continue to be a force for good, providing leadership and advocacy to help achieve our shared vision.”
The company also noted that it has “invested more than $420 million over forty years in developing non-animal testing methods.”
The #BeCrueltyFree campaign was launched in 2012 with the aim of extending the European Union’s legal precedent – banning cosmetic animal testing and the sale of newly animal tested cosmetics – to countries where this practice is still allowed or even mandated by law.
P&G’s support for #BeCrueltyFree will include joint education and capacity-building programs for non-animal alternatives, continued development of new animal-free approaches to safety assessment, and advocating for the legislative end of cosmetic animal testing in key global beauty markets.
For over two decades, P&G, HSI, HSUS, and the Humane Society Legislative Fund have collaborated on the development and regulatory uptake of animal-free testing methods. The organizations expect that by bringing their complementary strengths together, they will reach the end goal more quickly. A key focus will be gaining acceptance of new methods by regulators and enrolling many companies and governments globally to adopt cruelty-free public policies and practices.
Dr. Harald Schlatter, P&G Corporate Communications and Animal Welfare Advocacy added: “We’ve invested more than $420 million over forty years in developing non-animal testing methods. Our researchers have led or co-designed at least twenty-five cruelty-free methods that have replaced animal testing of cosmetic products. HSI and the HSUS have been powerful partners in advancing these methods globally.“
“Animal testing of cosmetics not only causes unnecessary animal suffering, but it also represents outdated science. For more than 20 years, we have collaborated with Procter & Gamble to advance the development and regulatory acceptance of non-animal testing approaches, but in order to finally move proposed cosmetics animal testing bans into law in the United States, Canada, Brazil, Chile, South Africa and other influential markets, we need the active support of major industry leaders such as P&G.,” stated Troy Seidle, HSI Vice President for Research & Toxicology. “With the power of P&G’s household brands, I’m confident we can achieve a legislative end to cosmetic animal testing globally within five years.”
P&G’s brands include: Always, Bounty, Charmin, Crest, Dawn, Downy, Febreze, Gain, Gillette, Head & Shoulders, Olay, Oral-B, Pampers, Pantene, Tide, Vicks, and more.
Each move to ban animal testing for cosmetics is an important step forward to ending the cruel and unnecessary practice, everywhere!
In 2018, Social Compassion In Legislation and Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine co-sponsored Senate Bill 1249, the California Cruelty-Free Cosmetics Act, with the support of Peace 4 Animals and World Animal News.
The historic legislation signed into law last October will make it unlawful for cosmetic manufacturers to sell any cosmetic in California if the final product or any component of the product was tested on animals after January 1, 2020, with some exceptions for regulatory requirements.
In a historic move to advance human medical progress and move away from reliance on monkeys, dogs and other animals as testing models for human diseases, the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), under the aegis of Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, has announced its plans to establish a new “ICMR Centre of Excellence in Human Pathway-Based Biomedicine and Risk Assessment” in Hyderabad.
ICMR’s announcement comes on the heels of meetings with Humane Society International and People for Animals, which have urged Indian science funding bodies to ramp up their investment in leading technologies such as human organs-on-a-chip and next-generation computer modeling techniques, which are essential for advancing public health and economic growth alongside the United States, Europe, China, and other global innovation leaders.
HSI/India Deputy Director Alokparna Sengupta said in a statement, “We are grateful to ICMR for thinking outside the cage and heeding our call to establish this urgently needed centre for advancement of human-specific approaches for medical research and product safety testing. More and more scientists are questioning the relevance and utility of animal-based research and testing, while foreign funding agencies are investing heavily in cutting-edge non-animal technologies. This new ICMR centre, if properly resourced, has the potential to make India a key global player in 21st century medical research. We look forward to continued collaboration with ICMR to make this vision a reality.”
In parallel, ICMR has coordinated the drafting of an “Indian Roadmap on Alternatives to Animals in Research” with inputs from eminent Indian scientists and experts in the area, including representatives of HSI/India. It is expected that this white paper document will serve as a foundation for developing future research funding calls by ICMR, which will ultimately drive the science agenda at the new human-focused Centre of Excellence in Hyderabad.
Humane Society International is a founding member of the Biomedical Research for the 21st Century (BioMed21) collaboration, a diverse, international group of stakeholders who share a vision of a new, human-focused paradigm in medical research. The collaboration is currently advertising an open funding call aimed exclusively at Indian health scientists, to support the development and open-access publication of targeted review articles in key public health areas such as cancer, diabetes (type II), cardiovascular diseases and tuberculosis.
FREE Materials to End Dissection | peta2
Posted by Emily
There’s no such thing as humane classroom dissection—because animals, dead or alive, are never ours to use. They can’t consent to donating their bodies to “science,” and certainly, none of them would be willingly drowned, poisoned, or forced to endure any other kind of horrific and painful death for your classroom activity.
Classroom dissection is an industry, which exists for one thing: money. 💰 That means that the well-being of the animals exploited by it isn’t even a consideration. So, no, workers don’t spend countless hours searching parks and creeks to collect 10 million dead animals each year. If your teachers told you that the animals used for dissection died from natural causes, they’re either misinformed or lying. It’s time for students to rise up and demand better.👊
Cruel dissection-specimen supply companies exist because schools order dead animals for students to cut into. When enough students know the truth and refuse to dissect animals, this cruelty will end—supply can’t persist without demand. Ready to take a stand against animal dissection? Order these free materials. You’ll receive 15 dissection leaflets and a sheet of our new stickers!
PETITION: All fields in bold are mandatory.
Johns Hopkins Confines Owls to a Basement Laboratory: Take Action Now!
Since 2017, Johns Hopkins University experimenter Shreesh Mysore has received more than $800,000 in tax-funded grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to study how groups of neurons or nerve cells work together to carry out different functions—not in humans but in barn owls.
Mysore cuts into the owls’ skulls, inserts electrodes into their brains, restrains the birds in an “experimental rig,” and then records their neural activity while having them watch dots on a TV monitor or exposing them to bursts of noise through earphones. For some experiments, he’s restrained fully conscious owls for up to 12 hours while recording and poking at neurons in their brains. He admits in a paper that “some birds were calm when restrained, while others were not.”
In another published paper, Mysore describes how he put the owls in a restraining tube so that they would be prone—an unnatural position for them—and then screwed the bolts connected to their skulls into a “stereotaxic device” so that they couldn’t move their heads.
A news release from the university now claims—without evidence or rationale—that understanding neural activity in barn owls could pave the way to developing therapies for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in humans. Say what?
Looking at the neural responses of trapped barn owls—whose skulls were cut open—to dots on a screen or noises blasted through earphones offers no insight into human ADHD. Even if it did, it’s too cruel to be allowed.
In addition to its transparent cruelty, the use of animals in experimentation has proved an unqualified failure. The evidence is overwhelming that data from experiments on animals can’t be reliably applied to humans. NIH itself acknowledges that 95 percent of drugs that test safe and effective in animals fail in humans because they don’t work or are dangerous. And a review in the prestigious medical journal The BMJ reported that more than 90 percent of “the most promising findings from animal research” fail to lead to human treatments.
Yet each year, NIH directs more than $15 billion of taxpayer money to animal experiments. Johns Hopkins is at the front of the line to ride the government gravy train, securing hundreds of millions of dollars for experiments on animals annually.
Please urge NIH not to squander taxpayer dollars on Mysore’s cruel and worthless experiments on owls and instead to redirect funds to modern, superior, non-animal research methods.
Putting your subject line and letter into your own words will help draw attention to your e-mail.
“He that takes truth for his guide, and duty for his end, may safely trust to God’s providence to lead him aright.” - Blaise Pascal. "There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily" – George Washington letter to Edmund Randolph — 1795. We live in a “post-truth” world. According to the dictionary, “post-truth” means, “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.” Simply put, we now live in a culture that seems to value experience and emotion more than truth. Truth will never go away no matter how hard one might wish. Going beyond the MSM idealogical opinion/bias and their low information tabloid reality show news with a distractional superficial focus on entertainment, sensationalism, emotionalism and activist reporting – this blogs goal is to, in some small way, put a plug in the broken dam of truth and save as many as possible from the consequences—temporal and eternal. "The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." – George Orwell “There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” ― Soren Kierkegaard